Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

Mark A. Greer [off-list ref] wrote:

I see three options:

a) Do it the same was as we're going to do it in 2.5

[...]

b) Do a more advanced bi_rec scheme (like benh's proposal)

c) Do mininimum necessary in 2.4; do it "right" in 2.5

I vote for doing 'c' now and keeping it unchanged for 2.5, 2.6, 2.10, 3.0, and
the eternity.

Can we focus on this question so we can stop going in circles?  Besides if we
reach a concensus in a "few days" we can take MS' $50.  :)

Then we have to agree on how many days is a few. And remember, the count
started yesterday at 16:53 PST. Also you have to have not only a consensus, but
a working patch counter to mine, otherwise you have to push mine and I keep my
$50.

MS

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Michael Sokolov wrote:

I vote for doing 'c' now and keeping it unchanged for 2.5, 2.6, 2.10, 3.0, and
the eternity.

You should know better than to ask for that :-).  As I have said in the past,
the current interfaces have changed several times and no one but Wolfgang
even noticed.  The changes this time should have been limited in exactly
the same way, so I'm constantly amazed by the amount of discussion and
disagreement.  It used to be no one wanted to work on this stuff (and few
understood how it worked), and now it has taken precidence over real useful
development that needs to be done :-).

We will never reach consensus, and it will always be changing.........


	-- Dan


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/